So Why Is It.....

[MylesBAstor]

that we don't notice a problem until we hear something better in our system?

[Hugh]

Because we didn't know the 'problem' was there all along.

[MylesBAstor]

Because we didn't know the 'problem' was there all along.

But then when you hear what isn't there, you have to ask why didn't you realize it all along? From that point on though, that issue always sticks out like a sore thumb when listening to other gear.

[Steve Lefkowicz]

Many issues and problems aren't noticed until they are gone simply because until you hear something without that specific "problem" you might not know what it was or be able to recognize it.

I would not have known or been able to describe PC induced noise through a USB DAC until I had an iFi iUSB to remove that particular issue. Now I can't play my server without a proper USB power supply (I have both the original iUSB and the new iUSB3 from iFi, as well as a Schiit Audio Wyrd).

Even an experienced and astute listener will be unaware of some issues that they have either always lived with or haven't heard done better before.

[MylesBAstor]

So I was thinking about this topic a little more in light of a review I am currently writing.

As a reviewer, it is easy to figure out what is "wrong" or "lacking" with a majority of equipment. Once we get to cutting edge equipment, however, the question swings to at the end of a review to how is the designer going to improve the sound that particular amplifier, preamplifier or speaker? Yet in many cases, the designers often do come up with ways of improving that pieces sound. So what is lacking in our imagination?

[david k]

You're rasing two different issues Myles, one is a problem or wrong that you should have noticed and the other is something which is good and right but bettered. I don't think that either has to do with lack of imagination but with experience and expectations. Because of that it's impossible to apply the same rationale for everyone.

david

[mkuller]

Acclimation. We become used to the way our system sounds.

Some even suggest that equipment break-in is actually listener acclimation but I wouldn't go that far.

As good as your system sounds there are always trade-offs and until we compare it to something better or with different trade-offs, we are happily unaware of what it is lacking. It never ceases to amaze me that when I hear other people's systems, I notice things that are better or just different than I hear on mine. Mine may be more satisfying for me in terms of strengths and weaknesses, but it doesn't do everything exceptionally well. Very few systems do.

[Joe Pittman]

that we don't notice a problem until we hear something better in our system?

I always describe this phenomenon as the "black tick on a white dog". It's a matter of contrast. As your system is improved, such as lowered noise floor for example, information in the original recording is revealed which was previously obscured. I am constantly amazed what I was missing in previous system configurations.

[JackD201]

It's an ongoing saga. So many times I've thought the problem might be the recording itself only to find another system sail through the very same problematic parts.

[MylesBAstor]

Something dawned on me tonight while listened to an update to a product that is in house.

The reason we miss hearing some faults in gear is that the brain subconsciously fills in the missing details.

So we might start with a working model that a minimum or coarse “level” must be attained for something to easily perceived. Those aberrations are easily picked up.

Then there are the finer details that may be present or need to be filled in by the brain. What is filled it depends upon context and the listener’s experience and background. Thus rhythmic details might be obvious to a musician while soundstage and imaging differences might be more easily identified by an audiophile. It is only when these details are there that the brain realized they have been missing all along.

[astrotoy]

Myles, my take is similar to your last comment. I categorize it as errors of commission vs. errors of omission. The errors of commission are much easier to spot - like what Classic Records did with some of its 33RPM reissues of the RCA Living Stereo - egregiously peaky highs in Venice for example. Or thumps or even the Kingsway underground in many of the Decca recordings.

However, errors of omission are much harder to spot unless you are looking for a specific characteristic. My wife and I were listening to Rubinstein playing the Emperor Concerto and she said - he's cheating - playing some octaves or tenths as broken chords. Sounded perfectly fine to me, and I have heard many, many Emperor Concertos. How did you know, I asked. She has played all of the Beethoven piano concerti with local orchestras, and the Emperor at one of the early Cliburn amateur competitions in Fort Worth, and so knows the Emperor very well. She said "Because I do exactly the same thing when I play that part."

Larry

[Mike Lavigne]

i'm going through some similar things with my new (to me) Lamm ML3 Signature amplifers listening to familiar cuts compared to my solid state darTZeel 458 amps. both amps seem to expose what is both the strengths and weaknesses of these two recognized standards. and I have to consider whether my system is favoring either amp to see the objective information. I've had the ML3's now a week and have worked though some synergy issues, so now they are really sounding very fine and happy. I've resolved some noise issues (lifted the ground on the power cords), and determined which input (RCA) seems to give the best sound. I've not tried different speaker cables yet.

but this is the classic, "why is it that we don't notice a problem until we hear something better in our system?

with the Lamm's, they simply run out of ability to command the amplifiers based on the musical content in trying to match the big darts. they don't sound bad, but can't touch where the darts can go. the performance headroom with the big darts is unlimited and that has significant musical consequences.

I've not yet re-inserted the darts since I got the Lamm's, but I know that the emotional content as good as it is with the big darts, particularly with intimate type music, is on another level with the Lamm's.

if I only had either set I doubt I would ever miss the other, but with both, it's easy to identify both strengths, and shortcomings compared to the best possible other choice. it's a completely new experience for me, and i'm learning as I go along. I have to figure out when to switch and for how long......and how to deal with all that. I do think my system is capable of optimizing both approaches, and fine tuning that is now my focus.

It will be interesting to learn where you are in a year. To which do you tend to gravitate after some time.

[Alrainbow]

I’ll try to make this post understandable
changes we hear be it like it or not take a bit of time to evolve in our brains. Since I have an auditory issue that cannot be corrected and have this defect for all of my life I have read into how we hear and see.
Both oir sight and hearing are done at far higher speeds then my thinking in this post. There are areas of our brain that operate at very high speeds while most don’t.
What we see is by lit eyes what we recognize is done by our brains 🧠
when we see an object our brain quickly goes to our own archives and looks for a match that we have made known
our hearing while even more complex does this too.
So filling in the blanks is right and wrong
when a new sound as In a new amp or speaker or dac
we first hear what we know in that archive of known sounds but over time this becomes not what we hear as known and New fills in the new sound as it becomes also known but not the same as before.
At this point of sound acuity we now start to hear what is really being heard. Repetition of the same sounds gives us more details of what is heard. Like increasing the resolution of a tv broadcast as there is more info it must be heard more times and become more known. With each pass it’s more detailed. This is how my brain works both in sound and optically. I’m constantly making changes to my setup in the digital realm it’s common place for me
to play the same 20 tracks or so as a reference point.
But playing New also creates more details in what we know overall.

I have my system setup to a point now that like a saxaphone croaks as it gets to the note I now hear this ina trumpet too. If you don’t hear this on tracks that I have that yield this detail. This means that system is lacking something preventing it.

[CJSPU]

that we don't notice a problem until we hear something better in our system?

Or we listen to the same music in a friends system and we notice that something is missing or not...

[DetroitVinylRob]

Part of what continually keeps us amused with a great musical performance, and then rendered on a very competent kit, I believe, is the same thing that continually eludes us with what might be present/missing.

Even the most basic live musical performance and associated acoustics is hugely complex in detail and timbres. Our ability to sense authenticity and accuracy (in a performance) transcends our ability to intellectualize or memorize it in the conscious mind.

We we are continually “tricked” by it, or not so much. Sonic memory is elusive... like colour, or the scent of a woman...

Why? I don’t know why, perhaps we are just not up to the task, perhaps we are not worthy

[MylesBAstor]

Myles, my take is similar to your last comment. I categorize it as errors of commission vs. errors of omission. The errors of commission are much easier to spot - like what Classic Records did with some of its 33RPM reissues of the RCA Living Stereo - egregiously peaky highs in Venice for example. Or thumps or even the Kingsway underground in many of the Decca recordings.

However, errors of omission are much harder to spot unless you are looking for a specific characteristic. My wife and I were listening to Rubinstein playing the Emperor Concerto and she said - he's cheating - playing some octaves or tenths as broken chords. Sounded perfectly fine to me, and I have heard many, many Emperor Concertos. How did you know, I asked. She has played all of the Beethoven piano concerti with local orchestras, and the Emperor at one of the early Cliburn amateur competitions in Fort Worth, and so knows the Emperor very well. She said "Because I do exactly the same thing when I play that part."

Larry

Excellent point!

There are just too many examples of this phenomena to ignore.

A pressing sounds good until you hear one better.

Or one I often wrestle with when finishing a review. How can the performance of a cutting edge component be improved? Especially considering the mountains of variables.

Granted that becomes easier with experience but some of today’s gear really gets the juices flowing. Sometimes one needs to turn off the emotional and turn on the analytical side of reviewing.

Granted some of this also comes down to experience/exposure and I still aver that what makes a good reviewer is having the ability to listen to lots of different equipment in their system and ascertain what sets the standards in different areas. Seems silly for new reviewers to start out reviewing $20k+ pieces of gear with no frame of reference.